Case Summary (G.R. No. 169588)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
- May 7 & 17, 2003: Alleged removal of wheel‐clamps
- May 23, 2003: Filing of affidavit‐complaints with City Prosecutor
- October 2, 2003: Filing of two criminal Informations in MTCC Branch 3
- February 10 & April 16, 2004: MTCC order and resolution quashing Informations for prescription
- April 20 & August 15, 2005: RTC Branch 7 decisions denying certiorari and reconsideration
- October 7, 2013: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution (rule‐making power)
- Baguio City Ordinance No. 003-2000 (Sec. 13, wheel‐clamp authority; Sec. 21, penalties)
- Act No. 3326 as amended by Act No. 3763 (two-month prescription for ordinance violations)
- 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Sec. 1, scope; Sec. 11, commencement by information)
- Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure (interruption of prescription)
- Article 91, Revised Penal Code (prescription computation)
- Zaldivia v. Reyes, G.R. No. 102342 (1992)
Factual Background
Jadewell employed wheel‐clamps to immobilize vehicles illegally parked under City Ordinance 003-2000. On May 17, 2003, clamps were allegedly removed from a Mitsubishi Adventure (Plate WRK 624); on May 7, 2003, from a Nissan Cefiro (Plate UTD 933). Jadewell valued each clamp at ₱26,250 plus unpaid fines and declamping fees.
Procedural History
- Jadewell filed affidavit‐complaints on May 23, 2003 with the Office of the City Prosecutor.
- Preliminary investigation culminated in a July 25, 2003 resolution finding no probable cause for robbery but for violation of Sec. 21, Ordinance 003-2000.
- Informations filed October 2, 2003 in MTCC Branch 3 charging ordinance violations.
- Respondents moved to quash (Jan. 20, 2004) on grounds of prescription under Act No. 3326, failure to state offense, and multiplicity of charges.
- MTCC granted quashal (Feb. 10, 2004) and confirmed by resolution (Apr. 16, 2004), holding that prescription was tolled only by filing in court.
- Jadewell petitioned for certiorari with RTC Branch 7; petition denied (Apr. 20, 2005) and reconsideration refused (Aug. 15, 2005).
Issue
Whether the two-month prescriptive period for violation of a city ordinance is tolled by filing the complaint with the City Prosecutor or only by filing the information in court.
Supreme Court Ruling
The petition is denied.
Supreme Court Reasoning
Prescription Period and Interruption
- Act No. 3326 (as amended) prescribes a two-month period for municipal and special law violations, commencing upon commission and discovery, interrupted by “institution of proceedings.”
- Article 91, RPC, aligns with Act No. 3326: prescription runs from discovery, interrupted by filing of complaint or information.
Governing Procedural Rule
- Under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (applicable to city‐ordinance violations), Sec. 11 provides that in chartered cities cases “shall be commenced only by information.”
- Baguio City is a chartered city under Act No. 1963 (its charter).
Precedent in Zaldivia v. Reyes
- Violations of municipal or city ordinances must be filed “directly in court” to commence the case and halt prescription.
- Filing with the prosecutor’s office, even if followed by an information after preliminary investigation, does not interr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169588)
Facts
- Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (“Jadewell”) is authorized by Baguio City Ordinance No. 003-2000 to operate parking spaces and to immobilize illegally parked vehicles by wheel clamps (Sec. 13).
- On May 17, 2003, Edwin Ang’s Mitsubishi Adventure (Plate No. WRK 624) was clamped for illegal parking; respondents Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia and John Does allegedly dismantled and removed the clamp valued at ₱26,250.00, and did not pay the ₱500.00 parking fine and ₱500.00 declamping fee (I.S. No. 2003-1996).
- On May 7, 2003, Jeffrey Walan’s Nissan Cefiro (Plate No. UTD 933) was similarly clamped; respondents Benedicto Balajadia, Jeffrey Walan and John Does forcibly removed the clamp valued at ₱26,250.00, and declined to pay the corresponding fines (I.S. No. 2003-1997).
Procedural History
- Jadewell filed two Affidavit-Complaints for Robbery (I.S. Nos. 2003-1996 and 2003-1997) with the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003; preliminary investigation was conducted on May 28, 2003.
- Respondent Balajadia filed a counter-case for Usurpation of Authority/Grave Coercion (I.S. No. 2003-1935), denied illegality of his parking, admitted removal of the clamp but claimed lawful motive to use it as evidence.
- On July 25, 2003, the Provincial Prosecutor found no probable cause for robbery but found probable cause against respondents for violation of Sec. 21, Baguio City Ordinance No. 003-2000; informations were filed in the MTC–Branch 3, Baguio City on October 2, 2003, docketed as Criminal Cases 112934 and 112935.
- Respondents moved to quash on grounds of prescription (2-month period under Act No. 3326, as amended), failure to state an offense, and multiplicity of charges.
- On February 10, 2004, MTC Branch 3 granted the motion to quash and dismissed the cases; its April 16, 2004 Resolution elaborated that under the Rule on Summary Procedure the prescriptive period runs until the case is filed in court.
- Petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with RTC Branch 7, Baguio City; on April 20, 2005, RTC Branch 7 denied the petition, holding that only the filing of an information in court interrupts prescript